Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowmont, North Carolina


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Meadowmont, North Carolina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable small community. The sources listed include no third-party reliable sources, so WP:GNG is not met.

The same set of sources was assessed at Articles for deletion/Meadowmont Village, where the article Meadowmont Village was deleted. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Meadowmont is a notable community not only in that it contains within its boundaries a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service of the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, but is also a complete community hosting part of the University of North Carolina, residential areas, shopping areas, offices, and hotels, and plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there. While the article did borrow the sources of the now-deleted Meadowmont Village (essentially a shopping center within Meadowmont) article, it now incorporates an additional link to the Meadowmont House's official listing on the National Register of Historic Place's website.  That website is specifically dedicated to identifying properties that are generally notable in the history of the United States after meeting stringent qualifications as arbited by a cabinet-level agency of the United States government and certainly meets Wikipedia's general notability requirements. A community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable.  Larry Grossman (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if the sources can be verified, they may be evidence of the notability of that house, but not of the surrounding area. So there are still no independent reliable sources which could evidence the notability of the community which you claim surrounds the house. I was not aware of any policy or guideline to support the claim that community that incorporates a site that is generally notable is also generally notable. Is that just your opinion, Larry, or do you have evidence that this a consensus view? It would help considerably if Larry would take the time to study WP:N, and recognise that the commentary in the first sentence of his keep !vote (that it "plays a significant part in the lives of the people who live, work, study, and visit there") is irrelevant to an AFD discussion: it confuses the notion of importance with that of notability. --- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. Yes, I am the article's creator. I'll review the notability guidelines you mentioned over the next few days and improve the article to meet them if that can be done. In the meantime, I'd appreciate if deletion could be deferred until I've had a few days to digest the guidelines and apply them. ...and I apologize for the broken link. I created it by searching the NPS's website to the page that lists the Meadowmont House as a historical property but it looks like that a dynamic link that expires, so I'll need to find a fixed link that others can pull up, and that will be my first improvement task. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now added an additional link to an article discussing the Meadowmont House from the "N&O" (News & Observer), the regional daily newspaper of North Carolina's Research Triangle area, which is another independent, reliable source meeting Wikipedia's standards. Larry Grossman (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * it would be better for you to have explicitly disclosed that you are the article's creator. The two sources which you have added consist of one broken link and an unlinked reference to a newspaper article with neither page number or article title. Without a link or other info, editor's can't verify the newspaper source, nor determine whether it meets the tests set out in WP:GNG.

I've now added the title and page number reference to the article in N&O Profiling the Meadowmont House. Larry Grossman (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've now fixed the link to the National Park Service's website for their National Register of Historic Places. You can now find the Meadowmont House's listing by going to http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads/Main.xlsx and then searching on reference numer: 85001554. Larry Grossman (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Found a good amount of significant secondary coverage here and here and here. This was after only a few seconds of looking. --Oakshade (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

How do we close this debate and remove the deletion notice on the article? It seems to me the improvements made to the article have addressed the initial concerns that caused the article to be nominated for deletion and I see two votes in favor of keeping. Larry Grossman (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD debates typically go eight days and then closed by an administrator. It can close early as a "keep" if the nom withdraws the nomination or under WP:SNOW Keep situation, that is it so many people would be in favor of keeping it that it would be very unlikely enough delete-preferring editors would come along before the eight days have ended. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Oakshade. I see. I just didn't want the nomination to drag on forever. I really like the article now that it has been improved (and I think actually the nomination was actually helpful in spurring that), so I hope the final determination is to keep, but I'll let things run their due course then. Larry Grossman (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.